## Domains and Descriptors | Domain | Key Behaviours | Maturity Levels (1–4) | | ------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------- | | **Analytical Reasoning** | Breaks problems into parts; identifies cause/effect; detects patterns | 1 = Struggles to structure; 4 = Models reasoning for others | | **Evaluative Judgement** | Tests credibility of evidence; challenges weak logic; weighs trade-offs | 1 = Accepts surface claims; 4 = Challenges and refines team decisions | | **Contextual Thinking** | Considers broader systems, culture, long-term impact | 1 = Stays narrow; 4 = Consistently connects dots across contexts | | **Reflective Awareness** | Notices bias, gaps in knowledge, and reasoning errors; adapts reasoning accordingly | 1 = Deflects or blames; 4 = Demonstrates learning agility | | **Constructive Challenge** | Asks probing questions, critiques without undermining, resists groupthink | 1 = Avoids tension; 4 = Shapes group dialogue with questions | | **Ethical and Value-Based Reasoning** | Considers fairness, unintended consequences, and value trade-offs | 1 = Ignores ethical implications; 4 = Integrates values into judgement | | | | | ## Usage - **Individuals**: Self-assess using the maturity levels, then identify 1–2 domains to develop. - **Teams**: Use a team-wide version in retrospectives or performance reviews. - **Managers**: Use as a coaching prompt or embedded in competency models. ## Practical Exercises for Developing Critical Thinking in Teams ### A. Scenario Scramble (30 mins) **Purpose**: Challenge assumptions, encourage multiple interpretations **Instructions**: 1. Present a realistic but ambiguous work scenario (e.g. “Sales are down this quarter”). 2. Ask teams to list as many **possible causes** as they can — no judgment. 3. Group the causes into categories: structural, behavioural, environmental, etc. 4. Discuss: What assumptions were we making at first? What did we overlook? **Skill focus**: Analytical reasoning, contextual thinking ### B. Assumption Busting (45 mins) **Purpose**: Uncover hidden assumptions and improve problem framing **Instructions**: 1. Take a recent decision or plan (real or simulated). 2. Ask the team: What are the assumptions behind this? 3. Probe: What if those assumptions are false or incomplete? 4. Explore how the plan would change with new assumptions. **Skill focus**: Evaluative judgement, reflective awareness ### C. Devil’s Advocate Debate (30 mins) **Purpose**: Promote constructive challenge and structured reasoning **Instructions**: 1. Select a team proposal or common belief. 2. Assign one person (or group) to take the opposing view — even if they disagree. 3. Run a structured 5-minute debate. 4. Debrief: What did we learn by hearing the other side? **Skill focus**: Constructive challenge, ethical reasoning ### D. Judgement Calibration (60 mins) **Purpose**: Improve confidence estimation and error awareness **Instructions**: 1. Give participants a set of prediction or estimation questions (e.g. “What % of customers churn in year one?”). 2. Ask them to give a confidence range (e.g. “Between 10–15%”). 3. Reveal actual answers and compare accuracy vs confidence. 4. Discuss: When were we overconfident? Underconfident? **Skill focus**: Evaluative judgement, reflective awareness ### E. Critical Incident Reflection (20 mins) **Purpose**: Build reflective practice and learning habits **Instructions**: 1. Ask each person to recall a recent mistake, surprise, or unexpected outcome. 2. Reflect using 3 questions: - What was my reasoning at the time? - What didn’t I notice or consider? - What would I do differently now? **Skill focus**: Reflective awareness, analytical thinking